52^ 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 






Manufacture of Patented Articles. 



^^-v OF cowj;,:^ 

'-^y SPEECH 



OF 



HON. HENKY B. SAILER 



OF IISTDI^N^, 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY T, 1874. 



The House, being in Committee of the Whole, 
Mr. SAYLER, of Indiana, said : 

Mr. Speaker : I desire to call the attention 
of this House to a field of legislation which I 
believe has never yet been occupied. I be- 
lieve it is of such commanding importance, to 
be fraught with so much that affects the wel- 
fare of the entire people, that it ought to be 
occupied at once. On the 20th of January- 
last I iatroduced a bill having in view the 
regulation of a large class of interests that it 
appeared to me ought to be regulated by act 
of Congress. The number of the bill is 1392, 
and I suppose members will find it upon their 
files. 

Before calling attention to the provisions of 
the bill, I wish to preface by remarking that 
the only absolute monopoly in this coun- 
try is the manufacture of articles protec- 
ted by letters-patent. There is no other in- 
terest in this country that is so absolutely and 
perfectly a monopoly as this. A man who 
has a patent-right, or a company or associa- 
tion which has a patent-right, upon an impor- 
tant subject, are made lords of all they sur- 
vey in this country ; and there is no possible 
way of restraining their desire to wrench from 
the labor of the country the largest possible 
percentage. 

The first section of my bill provides that 
where a machine or other article is manufac- 
tured or compounded by virtue of a single 
patent, it may be manufactured, used, or sold 
by any person, whether in his individual or 
associated capacity, by payment of a royalty 



to the owner of the patent-right of 10 per 
cent, upon the market value of the article 
manufactured ; and that he shall protect the 
owner of the patent-right by filing in the Pat- 
ent Office a bond in the sum of $10,000, con- 
ditioned upon the accounting every six months 
for this royalty and the payment thereof. He 
is also to give notice through the Patent 
Office of his name, place of residence, and 
place of business. 

The second section provides that wherever 
any article or machine has in its construction 
or composition an improvement protected by 
letters-patent, or where it is constructed or 
compounded under and by virtue of a com- 
bination or consolidation of two or more pat- 
ents, then any person, in his individual or 
associated capacity, may go into the United 
States district court in the district where the 
owners of those patents or the majority of 
them may reside, and by proceedings such as 
are now provided in civil causes therein have 
the royalty determined by the court ; and 
that this first proceeding shall be at the cost 
of the applicant, he protecting the owners of 
the patent by a bond, as I have before indica- 
ted. And it being not altogether impossible 
that the first adjustment of the royalty would 
be inadequate or unjust, the bill further pro- 
vides that in the event it is desirable, the own- 
ers of the patent, on thirty days' notice, may 
have a readjustment of the royalty, and that 
that readjustment shall be at their own cost, 
and final. The same provision applies to 
copyrights. 

I ask the attention of the House now for a 



X 



\ 



<5L 



c3p 



-^^ 



A 



2 



brief time to some statistics going to illus- 
trate the justice, the propriety, and, in my 
judgment, the absolute necessity, of legisla- 
tion of this character. The statistics that 1 
have gathered are mainly from the returns of 
the last census. In 1870 there were $2,118,- 
208,769 of capital engaged in all classes of 
manufacture, whether protected by patents 
or otherwise. By the expenditure of a little 
over $775,000,000 for labor, and nearly $2,- 
500,000,000 for material, there was produced 
an aggregate product of $4,232,000,000. The ' 
net product, deducting from this aggregate 
the wages paid and the cost of the material 
furnished, was 40 per cent, upon the capital 
employed. This is not the absolute net profit, 
but it approximates to it ; and 1 have used it 
as the basis throughout. 

Take tanned leather. In this branch of in- 
dustry, $42,720,505 of capital brought in as 
net product 35 per cent. — less than the aver- 
age ; so that it would require a fraction over 
thirty-four months to make up the entire 
amount paid for wages, materials, and capital. 

Woolen goods produced 32 per cent, upon 
a like basis. Pig-iron produced upon a like 
basis 20 per cent, and a fraction. Cotton 
goods upon the same basis produced 18 per 
cent, and a fraction. These goods are as 
nearly free from the influence of patent rights 
as any that I could find aggregating any con- 
siderable capital. 

I ask attention now for a little while to 
some of the industries specially protected by 
patent rights. First, patent medicine and 
compounds employed $6,667,684 of capital ; 
and upon the same basis netted 118 per cent. 
I am not complaining of that so very much 
in view of the questionable character of many 
of the products so eagerly bought throughout 
the country. 

In India rubber and elastic goods the cap- 
ital employed was $7,486,600 ; the wages paid 
amounted to $2,559,877 ; the materials cost 
$7,434,742. The product was $14,566,370 ; 
and the percentage was 59 per cent, upon the 
capital employed. 

Suppose we were to apply the provisions of 
this bill to this one class of goods ; suppose 
that we had had legislation of this character 
three years ago in the State of Indiana, (and 
I presume the case is the same throughout 
the country,) there would have been a vast 
amount of most vexatious and expensive liti- 
gation saved to a very creditable profession 
in this country. A large number of dentists 
in the State of Indiana — more than two hun- 
dred, I believe — were compelled to pay to the 
owners of the hard-rubber patent from $150 
to $300 apiece to compromise suits brought 
against them for infringement. If the pro- 



visions of this bill had been in force the den- 
tists in one county, or two or three or four 
counties, could have banded together, formed 
an association, given their bond, issued their 
notices, aud then used this material in their 
business, paying to the owners of the patents 
10 per cent, upon the value of the materials 
used — in no event to be less than iwenty-five 
cents upon a single article. Under such a 
provision the owners of the patents themselves 
would have reaped a rich hai'vest, the dental 
profession would have been greatly benefitted, 
the entire community would have received 
the benefit, and all interested would have 
been at peace, instead of being dragged from 
the uttermost corners of the State to the cap- 
ital of the Commonwealth at great expense 
to answer to the demand for blood from the 
owners of these patents. 

I turn next to house-organs and materials. 
The capital employed in the manufacture of 
these was $1,775,850, producing a net pro- 
duct of 61 per cent. You who have paid 
$161 for a house-organ have on that basis 
given to the owners of the patent a net profit 
of $61 on the organ. Shall music be so dear 
when the human breast wants it so much? 

I next refer to sewing-machines. The cap- 
ital invested in sewing-machines, as shown 
by the census, was a little over $8,750,000; 
the wages paid, a fraction over $5,000,000 ; 
the cost of the materials, a fraction over 
$3,000,000 ; and the net product was 67 per 
cent, of the capital. It takes but a fraction 
over seventeen months for the sewing-machine 
capital of this country to pay for all the labor 
it employs, all the materials it uses, and all 
the capital that is engaged in the business. 
Every two years you might burn down or 
utterly destroy every sewing-machine estab- 
lishment in this country, and they would yet 
have in their pockets all that they had paid 
for wages and materials — all their capital, 
and in the neighborhood of 20 per cent, be- 
side. 

In 1871, 610,000 sewing-machines were 
manufactured by twenty-five companies in 
this country. Averaging these sewing-ma- 
chines at sixty dollars apiece, (and surely 
this is a low average,) we have an aggregate 
product of $36,600,000 ; leaving them upon 
this basis $14,683,833 actual profit. The 
profit upon a sixty-dollar machine, as shown 
by the census of 1870, is twenty-four dollars 
— a very handsome investment. 

The entire number of sewing-machines sold 
in the United States up to the present time 
reaches in the neighborhood of three raillioft 
five hundred thousand ; and the aggregate 
profit on this basis upon the sewing-machines 
throughout the land amounts to $84,260,000 ; 



s 



and the great proportion of it comes from the 
toilers by the midnight lamp ; the greater 
portion of it comes from those who are com- 
pelled to '• Btitch, stitch, stitch," for a meager 
subsistence, while the patent-holders are in- 
sisting that $24 out of every $60 that they 
invest in sewing-machines shall go to them 
as profit. 

Agricultural implements : The capital em- 
ployed in the manufacture of these in 1870, 
as shown by the census, was $34,834,600, 

They paid a little over $12,000,000 for 
wages; they paid nearly $21,500,000 for ma- 
terials ; and their net profits on the basis 
indicated, was 52 per cent, on all the agri- 
cultural implements and machinery in the 
country. Th* man who pays $150 for his 
reaper pays $52 as a royalty to-day to the 
holders of patent-rights. The patent-rights 
are to be found upon the farm upon every 
agricultural implement and machine, unless 
it may possibly be the old split pitch-fork and 
the old-style rake. It is 52 per cent on every 
dollar invested in the manufacture of agricul- 
tural implements and machinery clear profit. 

The agyrregate amount in 1870 of this class 
of property in the United States was a frac- 
tion over $333,000,000. The actual profit 
upon that was nearly $120,000,000. Taking 
the two items of sewing-machines and agricul- 
tural implements, and the aggregate profit on 
all that have been sold, from their introduc- 
tion up to the present time on sewing-ma 
chines, and up to 1870 on agricultural imple- 
ments, is over $200,000,000 of actual profit — 
clean cut — thick cut, it is true, but clean cut. 

Here are now five branches of industry 
peculiarly protected by patent-rights. The 
aggregate capital invested in these five branch- 
es was a fraction over fifty-nine and a half 
millions of dollars. That capital produced 
$37,828,820 of net profits; $59,000,000 pro- 
duce $37,000,000 net profit. The same amount 
of capital, or nearly so, invested in manufac- 
turing pig iron ($56,000,000) produced eleven 
and two-thirds millions of dollars, less than 
one-third of the net profit of these five patent- 
right articles. The same amount of capital 
invested in cotton goods produced about $10,- 
000,000 — almost or nearly one-fourth as much 
as was produced by patent-right articles. 

Look at it further. Fifty-nine million dol- 
lars constituted one thirty-fifth of the entire 
capital invested in manufactures in 1870. 
This one thirty-fifth of the manufacturing 
capital of the country produced one twenty- 
second of the net aggregate profits. In any 
way you may look at it you will find there is 
a duplication every two years. You may 
burn up and utterly destroy every agricultu- 
ral«implement manufacturing establiabmeDt 




in the country, and "p^ (h^f^i %ake 4 per 
cent, on the invested amount. How many 
farmers of the country would be glad if they 
could do near so well? Thirty-five millions 
of capital invested in agricultural implements 
doubles itself every two years, and leaves a 
net profit besides. So it goes on, and on, and 
on, until, when the ordinary life of a patent- 
right shall have expired, more than $400,000,- 
000 has been made, or nearly made, by the 
original $35,000,000. To illustrate it: here 
is a farmer, a young man, who has forty acres 
of land ; he works that forty acres of land 
year in and year out, and in two years he 
makes the adjoining forty acres ; at the end of 
the fourth year another forty acres ; at the end 
of six years another forty acres; so that at 
the end of seventeen years, the ordinary life 
of a patent, the original forty acres, working 
nothing else, would have made for him two 
hundred and eighty acres. Almost any farmer 
in this broad land would be glad of such an 
opportunity to provide for his old age and 
children. 

I have no animosity against these patent- 
rights. I look upon the protection of inven- 
tive genius and enterprising capital as one of 
the greatest influences in developing the ma- 
terial resources of the country. I have no 
interest whatever in breaking them down. I 
prefer to encourage, I prefer to strengthen 
them, but in encouraging and strengthening I 
do not wish to warm in my bosom the serpent 
which will turn on me and sting me to death ; 
that will paralyze the hand which hag sup- 
plied it with the means of life. 

Objections are urged to this kind of legis- 
lation upon different grounds ; but before pass- 
ing to those objections I desire to appeal to 
any man here whether if the commercial com- 
I munity of this country could make 10 per 
I cent, net upon its sales it would not be amply 
i satisfied ; whether in every other department 
j of labor a net profit of 10 percent, is notcon- 
j sidered a handsome return. Here we have it 
i beyond the 50, beyond the 60, beyond the 100; 
i and all because we have pursued a policy in 
> the country which has given them the abso- 
j lute control of all the resource.s o'f the country. 
It is said that such legislation ought not to 
be considered, because the inventive genius of 
the country ought to be encouraged. This 
bill does encourage the inventive genius. It 
puts into the hands of the inventor his own 
invention. It gives him the opportunity to 
interest capital all over the country. It de- 
velops his invention wherever it is brought to 
the attention of the public. As it is now, the 
inventor of a useful machine or a useful com- 
modity is crushed by vexatious litigation and 
by untoward influence? that are brought tp 



bear by the capital of the country, I appeal 
to the members of this House, whether nine- 
tenths of those who have come here now and 
heretofore for the extension of patents, have 
not said invariably that they have been sub- 
jected to such vexatious and expensive litiga- 
tion and so untoward influences from capital 
that they have been unable themselves to 
make anything out of their inventions ; they 
have had to buffet and battle, and finally had 
their hopes crushed out of them, while the 
capital that has secured the patent has made 
warm its nest. 

It is said further that we ought not to con- 
template such legislation, because the right 
of property is as absolute in a patent-right as 
in money and ought not to be interfered with. 
I concede that the right of property in a pat- 
ent is an actual right that ought to be pro- 
tected. But it does not follow that we cannot 
regulate its protection. It was said to me not 
long since by a prominent gentleman engaged 
in manufacturing patented articles : " Why, 
sir, is not my patent-right just as much prop- 
erty to me for the length of time the laws of 
Congress have granted me the right as $50,000 
in money is to you ? " My answer was this : 
" Undoubtedly; but, my dear sir, while I may 
do as I please with my $50,000 in investing it 
in manufacturing or commercial pursuits, or 
in farming, yet when I come to loan it out for 
other people to use, the laws of every State 
and of Congress say to me, ' You shall not go 
beyond a certain per cent, of interest.' They 
put the bit in my mouth in regard to the use 
of my $50,000 ; and so, my dear sir, I would 
put the bit in your mouth on your capital. 
You may do as you please with it as long as 
you use it yourself, but when you charge the 
community an • exorbitant and extortionate 
price for the use of it, I will put a check on 
you if possible." And if it is not put on in 
this way there will be a power, sooner or later, 
that will come to these halls and will strike 
out from our statutes every vestige of patent- 
right law, and let inventors do as best they 
may. 

Mr. PARKER, of New Hampshire. Is it not 
a constitutional right which these men have 
to protection ? 

Mr. SAYLER, of Indiana. I am going to 
call the attention of the House to that. It is 
the next objection to which I was intending 
to allude. 

Mr. PARKER, of New Hampshire. I would 
as^ the gentleman, also, is not that right ex- 
clusive ? 

Mr. SAYLER, of Indiana. I will answer 
that question as best I can. The objection is 
brought up that this is a constitutional right 
that cannot be interfered with in the way pro- 



posed by this bill. The provision of the Con- 
stitution on this subject in article 1, section 8, 
is as follows : 

The Congress shall hare power to promote the prog- 
ress of science and useful arts by securing f >r limited 
times to authors aud inventors the exclusive right to 
their respective writings and discoveries. 

This is the constitutional provision. I will 
dispose of it in a summary way, which is at 
least satisfactory to my own mind. This is 
the aggregate power of Congress on this sub- 
ject. It is the extent to which it can go. The 
different grades are not marked out in the 
Constitution, but the limit is given. I take it 
that no man upon this floor will undertake to 
deny that it is not competent for Congress to 
repeal all law on the subject of patent-rights; 
and in that case I ask what remedy would the 
owners of patent-rights have for an infringe- 
ment or the use of their patents ? 

Mr. BRIGHT. I desire to ask the gentle- 
man a question. When the Constitution 
grants a right or a privilege, is it not impera- 
tive on Congress to execute it by law, or to 
provide the means for its execution. 

Mr. SAYLER, of Indiana. If the power in 
Congress is made mandatory the position of 
my friend is correct. But this is a permissive 
power. Congress shall have the power to 
do a certain thing; and if it has the power 
to do a certain thing it may utterly refuse to 
exercise that power. We have provisions of 
the Constitution which have never been exe- 
cuted by legislation. 

Mr, CLEMENTS. I desire to ask the gen- 
tleman one question, for information merely. 
While Congress may fail to exercise its power 
in the premises, and neglects to do anything, 
can it go to the length of passing a law which 
would be unconstitutional? If it does any- 
thing, must it not comply with the provisions 
of the Constitution? 

Mr. SAYLER, of Indiana. I understand 
the question of the gentleman from Illinois. 
It is a question which has been propounded 
to me time and again, and I shall be glad to 
give my views on it. The point is, if Con- 
gress exercises its powers, it must exercise 
them to the full limit. 

Mr. CLEMENTS. Not to the full limit; 
but in the manner specified. 

Mr. SAYLER, of Indiana. I have this to 
say in answer to the gentleman's question, 
that if Congress has the power in the first 
place to grant an exclusive right of manufac- 
ture for a given time on the one hand, and 
the constitutional power on the other hand 
to absolutely wipe out all legislation upon the 
subject, that these two extreme points are not 
the only points at which the act of Congress 



I 



may rest. The greater includes the less. If we 
can absolutely destroy this property we may 
preserve a part of it. If we can absolutely take 
away from these men all rights we may com- 
promise with them and leave them some rights. 
Mr. WHITEHEAD. I desire to ask the 
gentleman '^a question in regard to the word- 
ing of his bill. If Congress proposes to carry 
out the provision of the Constitution which 
has been read, must it not do so in the way 
the Constitution provides? The gentleman's 
bill provides that anybody may use this patent 
by paying 10 per cent. Does not the Consti- 
tution give the parties the right of assigning 
to some persons and not to others? 

Mr. SAYLER, of Indiana. The word " ex- 
clusive " means that. But it means more. 
It may be exclusive within limits ; it may 
be exclusive within certain prescribed limita- 
tions. And within the 10 per cent, provided 
here, and within the royalty that is deter- 
mined by the court, the power to manufac- 
ture is exclusive. I have simply to say upon 
this power of the Constitution, that I shall 
regret the day when a majority in Congress 
shall say that we have provided a Constitu- 
tion and laws under which we shall create in 
our midst a class, a moneyed aristocracy that 
may feed upon the vitals of the country until 
it is satiated, without shame and without re- 
straint; and still that we cannot raise our 
hands against the foul bird that is preying 
upon us. Shall it be said that this, the crea- 
ture of our own hands, may turn on us, and, 
by construction, eat up our substance ? Is 
that the sort of construction that would pre- 
vail in any court in the land ? Or, rather, 
would there not be such a construction as 
was intended by the framers of the Constitu- 
tion, and by the clear intendment of the law, 
taken in connection with the development of 
the art and science of government at the time 
the construction is made ? Shall we put 
upon ourselves a strait-jacket, and say that 
this exclusive privilege shall be construed 
either that we shall give to these companies 
or corporations a further power, a power that 
nobody else in this country can exercise, or 
else that we shall refuse it altogether ? Sir, if 
the advocates of the owners of these patents 
throw down that gauntlet, I will take it up 
and go to the country and say : " Since you 
will not go upon fair and reasonable grounds, 
you shall go without relief, without any kind 
of protection; if you insist upon destroying 
our substance, we will in self-defense, turn 
on you and destroy you." 

Mr. PARKER, of New Hampshire. Would 
you not thereby violate the Constitution ? 

Mr. SAYLER, of Indiana. Not by any 
moans. Thig is a permissive power, and the 



repeal of the patent-right law would be no 
violation of the Constitution whatever. I 
have never yet heard any man, professional, 
practicing lawyer or statesman, take the 
ground that Congress could not repeal an act 
that it had passed ; probably the rights crea- 
ted by that act would be reserved. 

Mr. WHITEHEAD. Would it be wise, 
provided Congress had the right, to exercise 
the right to repeal the patent laws ? 

Mr. SAYLER, of Indiana. I do not think 
it would be. 

Mr. WHITEHEAD. I think that nothing 
has tended so much to develop the agricultu- 
ral resources of this cocntry as the genius 
that has been displayed in the invention and 
manufacture of agricultural tools. The peo- 
ple who use them are at perfect liberty to 
avail themselves of the skill of the inventor 
or not, as they choose. If they choose, they 
can go back to the old primitive articles of 
manufacture. 

Mr. SAYLER, of Indiana. That is very 
much like saying to poor Jack, " Why don't 
you eat your supper?" At the same time he 
had no supper to eat. These primitive modes 
of agriculture have passed away. The neces- 
sities of the times have made these improved 
agricultural machines absolutely necessary. 
Had the gentleman listened to me a while 
ago he would have heard that I had no ani- 
mosity to inventive genius ; that I thonght it 
ought to be encouraged, and developed and 
protected. But when it turns upon its pro- 
tector, and says to its creator, " Give me your 
blood and substance to the last," then I will 
meet it and say, " You are my creature ; 
down! If you will not confine yourself within 
reasonable limits, then we will bring our 
power to bear upon you to its fullest extent." 
Mr. WHITEHEAD. Has not the Constitu- 
tion provided for a remedy by saying that 
this right maybe protected for a limited time, 
so that you may give it a limited right, for 
one year for instance, and then throw it 
open to the public? And by using the word 
" exclusive " does not the Constitution intend 
to give the inventor the absolute control for 
80 long a time as Congress in its wisdom may 
see proper to limit that control? 

Mr. SAYLER, of Indiana. I do not think 
so. We may limit it to one year, it is true. 
Suppose we were to submit this question to 
the patent owners : " Will you take your pat- 
ent-right for a year or 10 per cent, royalty 
for seventeen years?" What would be the 
answer. 

Mr. WHITEHEAD. I do not say that 
would not be the best way. But I ask, is not 
Congress restricted under the Consiitution to 
giving an exclusive proprietorship to the in- 



6 



rentor, and the controlling^ him by limiting 
the time for which he is to have that exclu- 
sive proprietorship ? 

Mr. SAYLER, of Indiana. I understand 
the gentleman, but I prefer my mode to his on 
constitutional grounds. But there is another 
element in this matter that is worthy of all con- 
sideration, worthy ^f all acceptation. There 
is no one thing to-day which is bringing the 
Government of the United States more into 
contempt and reproach among its own citi- 
zens than the swindling that is carried on in 
the sale of territory of patent-rights. Most 
villainous has been its practice throughout 
the country. As a rule, you find that no 
good patent-right is on the market peddling 
itself out in that way. A good patent-right 
is too good a property to be used in that way. 
An invention which is of value, and will pay 
from 50 to 100 per cent, upon the capital used, 
will not be put out in that way. But the worth- 
less patents are carried through the country 
by designing men, and sold ; they go through 
the country with a great sheet of parchment, 
handsomely embellished with a picture of the 
Patent Office, beautifully executed, written in 
an elegant hand, with the great seal of the 
Patent Office attached. And they say, " Look 
here ; the United States has had this matter 
before scientific men, and they say it is worth 
a great deal." And simple people, and often 
those who are not simple, are got into such a 
situation that ihey cannot restrain themselves, 
and they will buy. I know one town in my 
own State where these designing men took 
$33,500 for one of these worthless patents. 
All these designing men who have patents 
that are not worth a last year's robin's nest 
go out under the cloak of the authority of the 
Government with a patent-right, and swindle 
the people out of their substance. 

Mr. SPEER. I would like to put a question 
to the gentleman. I am ready to join with 
him in denouncing the swindling patent-right 
men who travel over the country ; but as a 
practical question, what remedy does the gen- 
tleman propose? 

Mr. SAYLER, of Indiana. I propose to 
apply a remedy by this bill, (H. R. No. 1392. j 
By this measure I would take away from 
everybody the opportunity of making such 
immense profits out of patent-rights ; I would 
say to them that there shall be no more than 
10 per cent, royalty in any patent. Thus I 
wx)uld take away the inducement to these ex- 
tortionate profits ; I would remove the excit- 
ing cause of this cupidity. 

Mr. SPEER. Would not the gentleman 
have to go a step further and legislate brains 
into the people to prevent them from being 
Swindled ? 



Mr. SAYLER, of Indiana. I do not propose 
to do that. I propose to take away from 
these designing men the means of making 
exorbitant profits out of that which derives 
its value from the official authority of the 
Government. If then the people have not 
brains eaough to protect themselves they will 
have to suffer. As suggested by my colleague, 
[Mr. Shanks,] the essential element of value 
in a patent comes from the fact that it has 
been examined by the scientific departments 
of the Government, and has the sanction of 
the United States, giving an exclusive right 
to the patentee. In a vast majority of cases 
that is the only element of value, and it is 
utterly fictitious. I would take it away. 

Why, sir, throughout the West, traveling 
along the highways, you will see here and 
there upon the gate-posts a notice posted up: 
" Patent-riglit men not allowed on these prem- 
ises." Why is this? These men have the 
authority of the Government of the United 
States ; they have the parchment of this Gov- 
ernment attested by its seal ; why can they 
not be allowed upon the premises of the peo- 
ple the same as any other honest men ? Be- 
orause there has gathered about this subject 
so much contempt, and the Government itself 
is brought into such odium. Let us wipe out 
these oppressive monopaHes. Let us make 
fair terms with inventive genius and enter- 
prising capital. Let us pay whatever is right 
and proper in consideration of inventive gen- 
ius and the intrepidity and enterprise of cap- 
ital. Let us say, "For all the energy that you 
display you shall have a sufficient reward in 
the way of absolute monopoly to yield you 
10 per cent." If 10 per cent, is not enough, 
make it 15 ; if 10 per cent, is too much, make 
it 5. But let us put an end to this oppressive 
system of patent-rights, which runs riot 
throughout the land, trampling every gre«n 
thing into the dust. 

Mr. Speaker, I entreat for this subject the 
consideration to which it is entitled. Yearly 
hundreds of millions of extortionate profits 
are gathered into the coffers of the few. Give 
me the Goodyear patent, give me almost any 
patent that is now in general use, and I shall 
ask no more than 5 or 10 per cent, royalty. 
Why, sir, a royalty of 10 per cent, upon these 
various articles in common use would give 
to the owners of the patent-rights a princely 
income ; it would make them an order of pur- 
ple and fine linen sufficiently conspicuous to 
answer all the purposes of a Republic like 
ours. 

I ask, then, that when this subject shall 
come before the House, there may be such 
action upon it as will satisfy the country that 
this Congrees is not only willing but ready to 



1 X. 



grapple with the greatest monopoly of the 
age in the interest of the oppressed people. 

Mr. WHITEHEAD. I would like the gentle- 
man to make one explanation. Does not his 
bill provide that any manufacturer, by paying 
10 per cent., may use a patent; and would 
not this give to the capitalist an advantage 
over the man of small means ? 

Mr. SAYLER, of Indiana. The patentee 
gets his royalty from the rich man who man- 
ufactures. 

Mr. WHITEHEAD. Does not that rich man 
get all the profit? 

Mr. SAYLER, of Indiana. No, sir ; I think 
it will be found that if he makes more than 
10 per cent, above the royalty upon the pat- 
ent, competition will restrain him, as is the 
case in other departments of manufacture. 



Mr. SHANKS. I wish to ask my colleague 
whether it is a fact that the Post-OflSce De- 
partment pays a royalty of two dollars on each 
of the letter-boxes which we see upon lamp- 
posts in the different cities where the system 
of delivery by carriers is in operation ? I 
understand that upon each of those boxes 
two dollars royalty is paid to some one hold- 
ing a patent. So that whenever we extend 
the letter-carrier system we impose upon the 
United States an additional liability to pay 
two dollars royalty upon all th« letter-boxes 
that may be found necessaryin the eitensioii 
of the system. 

Mr. SAYLER, of Indiana. I understand 
that to be a fact, though I am not authorita- 
tively informed upon the point from any oflBi- 
cial source. 



W. H. Moore, printer, 611 Eleventh street. 



Hollinger C 
pH8.5 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



01 



9 935 689 6 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



